Almost 0% chance he gets amnestied if BC is back. I think it's a bad idea anyway.

I don't know about getting anything back of value though. The only thing they should think about is getting rid of him without adding years of salary. Something like Ty Thomas, Ben Gordon, or Steve Nash (yeah I went there).

(1) Deal with Golden State, not worth it consider Amir in 2-3 years will hit his prime and possibly a better David Lee nonetheless unless we deal Bargs straight up for Lee but i doubt the Warriors would do it without getting either Amir or DeRozan from us.

(2) No to Eric Gordon, the guy is washed up, he won't get back to his Clippers form and will likely sign with a playoff contending team as a backup SG, possibly the Celtics, Pacers or Knicks.

(3) No to Amare Stoudamire, the guy is done for in this league, his knee is the problem, he won't become a productive PF without the likes of a Steve Nash unless we get Jose back but I don't see Stoudamire as a solution and possibly will remain as a Knick or sign with a team with championship-ring potential.

(4) I do like the Kings trade but i was hoping for J.Thompsons as opposed to Chuck Hayes. Hayes is useless and we have Acy although getting Jimmer is a plus since he can be our solution at the backup PG spot

(5) Getting G.Wallace would be stupid unless he can come off the bench as our 6th man, he can be a productive back up SF for us but i don't think Wallace would take that role.

Personally, I see Bargs most likely to be dealt to the following teams.

(1) Deal with Golden State, not worth it consider Amir in 2-3 years will hit his prime and possibly a better David Lee nonetheless unless we deal Bargs straight up for Lee but i doubt the Warriors would do it without getting either Amir or DeRozan from us.

(2) No to Eric Gordon, the guy is washed up, he won't get back to his Clippers form and will likely sign with a playoff contending team as a backup SG, possibly the Celtics, Pacers or Knicks.

(3) No to Amare Stoudamire, the guy is done for in this league, his knee is the problem, he won't become a productive PF without the likes of a Steve Nash unless we get Jose back but I don't see Stoudamire as a solution and possibly will remain as a Knick or sign with a team with championship-ring potential.

(4) I do like the Kings trade but i was hoping for J.Thompsons as opposed to Chuck Hayes. Hayes is useless and we have Acy although getting Jimmer is a plus since he can be our solution at the backup PG spot

(5) Getting G.Wallace would be stupid unless he can come off the bench as our 6th man, he can be a productive back up SF for us but i don't think Wallace would take that role.

Personally, I see Bargs most likely to be dealt to the following teams.

(1) Deal with Golden State, not worth it consider Amir in 2-3 years will hit his prime and possibly a better David Lee nonetheless unless we deal Bargs straight up for Lee but i doubt the Warriors would do it without getting either Amir or DeRozan from us.

(2) No to Eric Gordon, the guy is washed up, he won't get back to his Clippers form and will likely sign with a playoff contending team as a backup SG, possibly the Celtics, Pacers or Knicks.

(3) No to Amare Stoudamire, the guy is done for in this league, his knee is the problem, he won't become a productive PF without the likes of a Steve Nash unless we get Jose back but I don't see Stoudamire as a solution and possibly will remain as a Knick or sign with a team with championship-ring potential.

(4) I do like the Kings trade but i was hoping for J.Thompsons as opposed to Chuck Hayes. Hayes is useless and we have Acy although getting Jimmer is a plus since he can be our solution at the backup PG spot

(5) Getting G.Wallace would be stupid unless he can come off the bench as our 6th man, he can be a productive back up SF for us but i don't think Wallace would take that role.

Personally, I see Bargs most likely to be dealt to the following teams.

(1) Deal with Golden State, not worth it consider Amir in 2-3 years will hit his prime and possibly a better David Lee nonetheless unless we deal Bargs straight up for Lee but i doubt the Warriors would do it without getting either Amir or DeRozan from us.

(2) No to Eric Gordon, the guy is washed up, he won't get back to his Clippers form and will likely sign with a playoff contending team as a backup SG, possibly the Celtics, Pacers or Knicks.

(3) No to Amare Stoudamire, the guy is done for in this league, his knee is the problem, he won't become a productive PF without the likes of a Steve Nash unless we get Jose back but I don't see Stoudamire as a solution and possibly will remain as a Knick or sign with a team with championship-ring potential.

(4) I do like the Kings trade but i was hoping for J.Thompsons as opposed to Chuck Hayes. Hayes is useless and we have Acy although getting Jimmer is a plus since he can be our solution at the backup PG spot

(5) Getting G.Wallace would be stupid unless he can come off the bench as our 6th man, he can be a productive back up SF for us but i don't think Wallace would take that role.

Personally, I see Bargs most likely to be dealt to the following teams.

The team I always end up looking at in trade scenarios for Bargs is Phoenix. They have Frye, and Scola. Either would be decent 3rd (stretch) bigs (Scola could compete with Amir for starter minutes). The problem is the Raps would have to take Beasley in a trade. Even though he's only $6 Mill a year turning him into a movable piece would take PR magic.

The other team I've looked at is Mini. With Derrick Williams improving during the last half of the season and Love being hurt trading AK47 for Andrea actually makes some sense for them.

Of the trades you suggested the 2 that piqued my interest were the Amare trade and the Kings trade. The Kings trade is sensible. The Raps get 2 smaller contracts which potentially can be moved. In Jimmer they get a SG who can play backup the 1 and sure up the guard rotation. Hayes is just trade ballast. If Hayes can be moved to a third team even better.

The Amare trade would be a straight 'Hail Mary'. The media in Toronto would eat it up. Expectations would skyrocket for no good reason, but it would be a fun ride.

One last thing, I find it highly unlikely that any team would want to add an additional player to a Bargnani deal. For instance, a trade including Demar may work but when the season starts his cap hit is around $8 Mill. That would mean they traded $13-15 Mill to take on $19 Mill. Not going to happen. The best assets the Raps had to add to a Bargnani trade were cap space, and Ed Davis both of which were traded away for Rudy Gay. Unless someone wants Terrance Ross, Acy, or that kid stashed away in Europe no one will take on Bargnani's and another player's contract.

EDIT:

Just saw 10forthewin's genius... awesome. At least two of those trades can be done without adding additional players. Okafor for Bargnani straight should work. So should Millsap straight (that would have to be a sign and trade) Why on earth would the team we would be hypothetically trading with add assets and take additional bad contracts? Dude. You rule.

1) Amnesty is not an option. It does not provide any benefit except for sending him packing. While that is a great benefit in and of itself, dollars over the salary cap are valuable and impossible to replace without an exception. Given current roster and money owed, you need to get anything of value for him - and while I am definitely still all about #tradeBargnani I think something of value can come back.

2) Sit tight is not an option. We've been sitting tight for 7 years and how has that worked out?

3) Any realistic trade should be for a dreadful expiring contract (Jefferson, Biedrins, Gordon, etc.); with any team that thinks they can tap his potential (I laughed typing that); for a contract as bad as or worse with another asset attached such as a draft pick or prospect (Tyrus Thomas? *shudder* Beasley? *shriek*); or with a really cheap team making a financial move (Da Bulls).

1) Amnesty is not an option. It does not provide any benefit except for sending him packing. While that is a great benefit in and of itself, dollars over the salary cap are valuable and impossible to replace without an exception. Given current roster and money owed, you need to get anything of value for him - and while I am definitely still all about #tradeBargnani I think something of value can come back.

2) Sit tight is not an option. We've been sitting tight for 7 years and how has that worked out?

3) Any realistic trade should be for a dreadful expiring contract (Jefferson, Biedrins, Gordon, etc.); with any team that thinks they can tap his potential (I laughed typing that); for a contract as bad as or worse with another asset attached such as a draft pick or prospect (Tyrus Thomas? *shudder* Beasley? *shriek*); or with a really cheap team making a financial move (Da Bulls).

Would you take Beasley if Scola was the attached piece? My thought is that buying out 2 years of Beasley still costs roughly the same as paying one of Bargnani's years. It doesn't provide any cap relief because it's not an amnestied deal, but the team has no flexibility anyway, it costs less total dollars, and it could open a roster spot even just for a minimum contract guy. Even if it doesn't provide the same (technically useless) cap relief, but if they get Scola and even just sign an end of bencher like Marquis Daniels or Francisco Garcia, I'd be fine with that.

1) Amnesty is not an option. It does not provide any benefit except for sending him packing. While that is a great benefit in and of itself, dollars over the salary cap are valuable and impossible to replace without an exception. Given current roster and money owed, you need to get anything of value for him - and while I am definitely still all about #tradeBargnani I think something of value can come back.

2) Sit tight is not an option. We've been sitting tight for 7 years and how has that worked out?

3) Any realistic trade should be for a dreadful expiring contract (Jefferson, Biedrins, Gordon, etc.); with any team that thinks they can tap his potential (I laughed typing that); for a contract as bad as or worse with another asset attached such as a draft pick or prospect (Tyrus Thomas? *shudder* Beasley? *shriek*); or with a really cheap team making a financial move (Da Bulls).

I'd rather have Bargnani than Beasley. At least our Dance Pak can feel safe with Bargs.

I voted trade, but I do not like any of those trades more than content.

If I honestly had to choose one deal, it would be the Sacramento deal, only for a couple reasons:

1. The main reason, is the fact we don't give up any additional assets. I cringed at the Warriors deal because we give up Amir, for Lee who has likely peaked, and you could make an argument for Amir at his peak, but, from the team standpoint, Amir stands and or represents a lot for the team.

2. The Hornets trade seems fine, debatable, but fine. I wouldn't be upset with the Hornets deal, but Eric Gordon's salary is obviously higher than DeRozan's, and while Gordon is a more skilled player, he's very injury prone. This team has enough issues with injuries.

3. Chuck Hayes is an undersized big man, yes, but he's a banger, solid defender, good rebounder. Can play both the power forward and centre positions, which would be a bonus, because this team obviously revolves around versatility. His contract might be a problem at $7 million a year, but he's a big man off the bench who addresses an issue of need, compared to a big man who's injury prone, soft, play style no longer fitting the team, and $10 million a year and arguably useless, is a win in this trade.

4. The team needs shooting, and whilst he hasn't lived up to the expectations, Jimmer Fredette is a capable perimeter shooter, and with John Lucas III being more suited as the 3rd string, and Telfair likely walking, Fredette can be a different look to Lowry off the bench. Obviously, a bit more scoring minded, but an underrated passer, at the very least, he's a player that can get a team into their offense, and on a rookie scale contract.

1) Amnesty is not an option. It does not provide any benefit except for sending him packing. While that is a great benefit in and of itself, dollars over the salary cap are valuable and impossible to replace without an exception. Given current roster and money owed, you need to get anything of value for him - and while I am definitely still all about #tradeBargnani I think something of value can come back.

2) Sit tight is not an option. We've been sitting tight for 7 years and how has that worked out?

3) Any realistic trade should be for a dreadful expiring contract (Jefferson, Biedrins, Gordon, etc.); with any team that thinks they can tap his potential (I laughed typing that); for a contract as bad as or worse with another asset attached such as a draft pick or prospect (Tyrus Thomas? *shudder* Beasley? *shriek*); or with a really cheap team making a financial move (Da Bulls).

It doesn't offer the same benifit it would if the team was already under the salary cap, but it does free up space below the tax threshold. This leaves a little more wiggle room for trades and gives the team more opportunity to go into the tax in future years with less penalty (should they choose to). It also free up space below the salary cap (depending on Colangelo/a real GMs, moves this offseason) for the following year.

Also, should the salary cap threshold increase this coming year, there is a shot the Raps could drop below it if they amnesty Bargnani.

Getting something of value in return for Bargnani is ofcourse the best option, but also not entirely clear its even likely. Amnestying Bargnani should most definetely be seen as a legitimate option.

The correct option is sit tight. Bargnani's value is at an all time low. If you try to trade him, you'll get next to nothing. If you amnesty him, the next team that signs him will sign him for next to nothing (which means MLSE will be paying the major portion of his salary for the next two years).

You sit tight and wait. You don't have to play him much, or at all. At worst he becomes an expiring contract which is much more valuable than him right now. The whole "We've waited 7 years" argument doesn't apply here because now, the expectations are zero, and all we're waiting for is some trade value.

Might I suggest a 4th option, to buy him out. Can't we negotiate a buyout with AB? He's a man, he has pride and doesn't want to come off the bench on a team where he's no longer considered as part of the future. He's been competely singled out by fans to a point where they boo him at home games.

Why wouldn't he agree to take 50% (hypothetically) of his contract and go look for another team or even go back to Italy and play for his home team. He'll be a national hero once again and life will be good. No more booing, no more feeling like he doesn't belong, and he's still young enough to get a nice fat contract to recoup the money he's giving up to leave Toronto. Win, win?

It doesn't offer the same benifit it would if the team was already under the salary cap, but it does free up space below the tax threshold. This leaves a little more wiggle room for trades and gives the team more opportunity to go into the tax in future years with less penalty (should they choose to). It also free up space below the salary cap (depending on Colangelo/a real GMs, moves this offseason) for the following year.

Also, should the salary cap threshold increase this coming year, there is a shot the Raps could drop below it if they amnesty Bargnani.

Getting something of value in return for Bargnani is ofcourse the best option, but also not entirely clear its even likely. Amnestying Bargnani should most definetely be seen as a legitimate option.

If the Raptors amnesty Kleiza as rumoured and if the cap goes up a couple of million as rumoured then it makes no difference. The largest difference in salary under $9.8M is 150% plus 100k. Over 9.8M the salary difference must be no more than $5M.

Again the assumption is the luxury tax goes up $2M and Kleiza is amnestied but with this happening you get the flexibility you speak of by amnestying Bargnani.

At the very least I think Bargnani could return Richard Jefferson from Golden State or Ben Gordon from Charlotte. Both are expiring contracts and you get the flexibility for the summer of 2014 you referenced.

As for more opportunity to go in to the tax in future years, not sure how that would work. Once over the cap you only have exceptions and the allowable differences in salary in trades to add salary. Bargnani's salary removed puts them at $60M or so next season and a full MLE combined with $5M in salary coming in on a lopsided trade doesn't put them in the luxury until you start adding minimum salaries.

I don't think that 50/50 buyout is an option. Would anybody leave $10 mil on the table no matter what they had to endure?

My head hurts from Matt's amnesty/cap/tax explanation. So the gist is that is doesn't make much sense to amnesty Bargs? I'll go with that. Thanks, Matt.

As for Richard Jefferson, Ben Gordon deals... I thought about including that in the original post. But I could not, for the life of me, come up with a reason why those teams would take on an extra year of $12 cap-clog to have Andrea play for them. I'm not willing to stamp those deals as "realistic" unless we can get a good explanation going for that.

As for the Super Cool Beez idea, I couldn't bring myself to include him in any deal i listed. I agree with whomever said they'd rather have Bargs. Could Beez even get into Canada at this point?

The Sacto deal... I started off with Thompson in the deal. But I didn't have a reason why the Kings would flip JT for Andrea. Hayes seemed like the better fit from their perspective. I liked Hayes because he may even be able to show Acy a thing or 2 about post D as a super-undersized guy.

I'm surprised at the amount of people saying they wouldn't give up Amir for David Lee. Lee's defensive issues are well documented, but he's a walking double-double. He's a vetern presence, a solid team leader, and has a ton of hussle. He'd be a good influence on our young guys. I think he, JV and a combination of our wings sliding down to the 4 could make a competent 4-5 rotation. We could sign somebody like Grey or Jason Collins as insurance for the big-man rotation. I expected people to call me out by saying that GState would never take on Bargs if giving up an all-star, not make the opposite case. One day I'll learn how over-valued our players (Amir, in this case) are in this board.

Also surprised that guys are throwing their bodies in front of a DD for EG trade. Gordon gives us the shooting we need to space the floor for the effective post game of Rudy Gay (and hopefully the developing post game of JV). He's a bull when going to the basket too, so he can maintain an effective part of the O that Demar brings to the table. He's got a decent handle, which could settle our issues in that department a lil bit. I do have concerns about his injuries and his ability to mesh with Kyle, but shooting down the EGordon/Demar trade immediately is very surprising to me... especially because we gave up AB in the hypothetical deal! If anything, New Orleans says no and looks for more in exchange for Gordon.

I think landing Eric Gordon or David Lee in a Bargnani deal (even if giving up Amir or Demar) would be a huge coup for whoever is making our BBall decisions these days.